Wednesday, October 30, 2013

I guess that's how you could abbreviate "Attention Deficit Disorder Without Hyperactivity." I would have been diagnosed with that a kid, except the diagnosis didn't exist.

Here's what I read on a website, which I won't link. It just encourages these 'tards.

"Children with attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity may not be the kids who stand out as having special needs. Instead, they are likely to be seen as unmotivated daydreamers who work too slow, don't volunteer to answer questions, and rarely complete homework on time. They may be disorganized, lose homework, or arrive late to class. Attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity is one type of attentional disorder that is sometimes overlooked in children and adults because others may see them as slow or lazy."

I wasn't seen as slow. Actually my teachers wrote on my report cards, "He was such potential!" meaning I was supposed to do my homework, and of course when I turned it in, I was supposed to do it better. (And apparently that "potential" was just sitting inside of me like a lump, just waiting for some yeast to be added.)

No thanks. I don't believe in homework. Didn't then, and don't now. It was suffocating, boring, and most probably, brain-damaging. (I sometimes the impression the schools weren't trying to kill me, just remove my brains.) And when you're bored, you can't be enthusiastic and motivated.

I was bored by school. I wasn't hyperactive, thank God. I just didn't pay attention and daydreamed. I got into a fair amount of trouble. I used to fall asleep sitting up at my desk in high-school, because I wasn't interested in sitting still and listening.

Yet, of all things, I taught myself binary when I was 11. I wasn't in school, of course.

Here are some of the ways teachers are supposed to improve student's attention.

"Seat the student near the teacher for instruction."

Of course. Sitting the student close to the warden or the prison guard is going to make things better. What moron came up with this suggestion?

"Provide a quiet area for seat work or consider a study carrel, stall, or cubicle."

Now that is a good suggestion, and is in fact the opposite of the first one.

"Pair the student near others who model appropriate study habits. Watch the situation to ensure the model students are able to work."

Sure. Pair the student with others he can't stand. Perfect!

I have a better idea. The kid drops out of school in first grade and has a mentor who will take him for long walks in the country and explain things to him. Then later he sits down for a half hour or so and teaches him math, chemistry, whatever.

I graduated from a large college that was the largest producers of teachers in a large state. The students were stupid (except for one) and they were all girls. The education department is bottom of the barrel when it comes to the quality of students.

Okay, so maybe it's not practical for some kids to drop out of school and have mentors. Then how about all-male schools with male teachers? Thinking back, I had more fun, and learned more, from my male teachers, including one who was an ex-Marine, who once drew a stick-figure on the blackboard with two-and-one-half legs. All the boys in the class just cracked up.

It's got to the point I don't think female teachers should be allowed anywhere near little boys. I didn't think much of most of them when I was a kid, and after college, I think even less of them now.

I get the impression all this drugging of little boys with Ritalin and other brainwhack poison is an attempt by inept teachers and administrators to turn little boys into Sheeplegirls, who are much better at sitting in ranks and rows and paying attention to teachers going wack, wack, wack, wack, like in the Charlie Brown specials.

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to have kids start school at, oh, seven, and get out at 12 or 13? What exactly do that learn in 13 years of school? Or is it just boring baby-sitting so their parents can work?

Our schools are such a catastrophe we have to try something different.

Personally, I think tearing down the public schools and salting the ground might be the best thing. Sooner or later, in one form or another, that is exactly what is going to happen.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

This country was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a republic. The Founding Fathers despised democracy. As far back as the ancient Greeks democracy was despised. They saw were it went.

Contrary to the myths, democracy is not American. It's anti-American. Worse, it's leftist, and leftism is about as close as pure evil as exists.

Want to see what democracy turns into? Look around. Fascism/totalitarianism. Democracy is when the smart are outgunned by the stupid. Why should someone with an IQ of 105 be allowed to vote?

And since the average IQ is 100 - which means half the people in his country have IQs of less than 100 - it is impossible, under democracy, for the smart and knowledgeable to rule. Democracy is the Rule of the Retards.

This woman should not be allowed to vote. She's a moron, and before these days of Political Correctness a moron was someone with an IQ of 85 or less. Muhammad Ali, who has an IQ of 78, is a moron.

If democracy does not work, what does? How about Kings and Queens? How about a constitutional monarchy?

As both the late Catholic anarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, have noted, a constitutional monarchy is far superior to any other form of government.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote the relationship between a monarch and his citizens is much like that between fathers and children, and Hoppe has made persuasive arguments that since kings in a sense "own" the country, they’ll take better long-term care of it than a democracy, which invariably looks no further than the next election.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn, quoting Rivarol, had this to say about the difference between monarchy and democracy, "...a monarch can be a Nero or a Marcus Aurelius, the people collectively can be a Nero, but they can never, ever, be a Marcus Aurelius" (my view is that the population may expand, but intelligence is a constant). He also wrote, in Leftism Revisited, "Outside of Switzerland, there has never been a republic that did not become a monarchy. Only the ignorant, the insular, or provincial can consider a republic or democracy – both antique forms of government – ‘modern,’ or a monarchy ‘obsolete.’"

Hoppe writes this about democracy: " ...democracy has been the fountainhead of every form of socialism: of (European) democratic socialism and (American) liberalism and neo-conservatism as well as of international (Soviet) socialism, (Italian) fascism, and national (Nazi) socialism."

He has this to say about monarchs: "...a king, because he ‘owns’ the monopoly [the country] and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on ‘his’ territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock."

Concerning the lying weasels who run democratic governments, he writes, "the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government."

Friedrich Hayek noticed the same thing in chapter ten ("Why the Worst Get on Top") in his 1944 masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, when he wrote that "the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful" in any society that sees government as the answer to society’s problems. "Seeing the government as the answer to society’s problems" is one of the best one-sentence definitions of democracy I’ve run across.

In fact, I should be King. I'd close down 90% of the government, fire 90% of the police, disarm the rest, arm all the citizens, deport every lowlife right out of this country, imprison or shoot every traitor, close down the central bank, dismantle our overseas empire, then declare bankruptcy and reboot the country.

And that would be on my first day as King.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I will show you the difference between "royalty" and democracy.
This is the First Lady of Syria:

Monday, October 28, 2013

When I first read that quote, years ago, somehow it made me wonder what exactly the free market is.

Here's an example: hundreds of years ago, right at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of people in England owned small plots of land on which they grew some food. Most people didn't work all the hard and spent most of their time loafing, drinking, partying, telling stories.

The the State/Big Business decided they wanted workers in the factories, so they sent the police/military to force people off of their land, so they'd have to work in what William Blake called "Dark Satanic Mills." This clearing of the land is very famous and called the Clearances.

The same thing happened in Scotland - where people were burned out of their houses - and is called the Scottish Clearances.

None of it is the free market.

I sometimes wonder what life would be like had we had the free market for the past few hundred years.

There were actually Clearances of a sort in the U.S. We were at first an agricultural nation, then when we became industrialized the government essentially decided to force many farmers off of their land.

Speaking of industrialized, the political scientist Kevin Phillips pointed out
countries go through three phrases: agricultural, industrial, then financial (which is when they become empires), then they collapse.

Sound familiar? Sure does. And none of it is free market. All of these Bad Things are caused by the State interfering in people's live, to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

I suspect if we truly had the free market, most people would own fairly large plots of land, and none of this being squished in cities in small houses and even smaller apartments.

I know a woman who lived in Alaska. Every year she got about a $2000 check because of all the oil in Alaska. She got a share of the profits. Which reminds me: by what right do companies drill for oil, not share the profits with the people in the state, then sell them products of the oil, when they owned the oil in the first place? Isn't that stealing? If we had a true free market wouldn't they get a share of the profits from their land?

And doesn't the same apply to mines and anything else that's based on anything that comes from the land?

The first book I read by Laura Ingalls Wilder was Farmer Boy, the biography of her husband, Almanzo. It was an eye-opener. His parents owned their own farm and Almanzo's father once told him, in so many words, that if he worked for someone else he'd essentially be a wage-slave.

Almanzo worked hard as a little boy on the farm but he loved it. He had meaning, purpose and community in his life, and since he loved what he was doing he didn't consider it work. Just as Confucius noticed thousands of years ago. Perhaps he considered it play. Hard, trying play, but play nonetheless.

It'd been estimated that if wages had continued to rise as they had during the '50s the average salary would inbetween $90,000 and $100,000. I've seen other estimates that if they had continued as they had during the '40s it be close to $300,000 a year. And it's not because of interference by the government.

If we had a true free market, I think everyone would own at least two plots of land (which used to happen not so long ago when people had fishing cabins in the mountains along with their homes), we'd be making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and everything would be peachy-keen.

Instead, we've got morons arguing about the effects of the minimum-wage and telling people with IQs of less than 100 they're supposed to "improve their skills" to get higher-paying jobs - while missing the Big Picture.

People are starting to wise up as to what the State is about. I've seen people pull out of those catastrophes known as the public schools, build $4000 houses in rural areas and move their families there. Why?

Because they are looking to find a life that they love, so what they do will not be work. They don't want to be working for the Man.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Europe during the Middle Ages is right up there with Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in the Top 5 Places It Would Suck to Have a Vagina. Women were horribly oppressed and were treated as second-class citizens -- their only responsibilities were to cook, clean, and squeeze out (male) babies on demand.

The Reality:

Up until about 200 years ago, Europe was a largely agricultural society. And the funny thing about back-breaking and often dehumanizing labor is that it has a weird way of equalizing people -- when literally every member of the family is out busting his or her ass every morning just to fend off the very real threat of starvation, gender roles and sexism suddenly don't seem all that important. Thus, when it came to household responsibilities, women and men were equals by default, since the women had to do all the same bullshit their husbands had to do. So should time travel ever become a thing, never tell a medieval peasant woman to go make her husband a sandwich, because she'll probably cackle her plague-breath all up in your face before snapping you in half like a twig.

And the story wasn't much different in the cities. If dad owned a shop or a tavern, his daughters were the ones helping out. Sometimes a daughter would actually take over the family business and run it herself if her father became unable to, something that wouldn't really happen until much later in modern society. Women also generally ran the taverns in the Middle Ages -- in fact, women once ran England's entire beer industry. It's not quite clear when that changed, but we have to assume that at some point men realized they had allowed women to become all powerful by letting them be in charge of both beer and vaginas.

Women who weren't busy running taverns or growing crops to survive could join a convent, which may not sound all that impressive until you realize that this gave them access to education in a time when that was extremely rare -- nuns could read and write in an age when the most powerful kings couldn't. And if they stuck with it long enough to become the abbess of a convent, they were in a position of power very similar to a male lord -- only, you know, maybe even a little higher, seeing as how they technically reported directly to the King of Kings and all.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

"Monsters are real, and ghosts are real too. They live inside us, and sometimes, they win." - Stephen King

I have half-a-dozen monster models I built when I was 12 years old.

I've had to rebuild them several times, but I have never minded doing it.

Even now I like monsters. It took me a while to understand why.

Again I'll point out the word "monster" comes from the word "monstrum," which means "an aberrant occurrence, usually biological, that was taken as a sign that something was wrong within the natural order.

"The word usually connotes something wrong or evil; a monster is generally morally objectionable, physically or psychologically hideous, and/or a freak of nature. It can also be applied figuratively to a person with similar characteristics like a greedy person or a person who does horrible things.

"However, the root of 'monstrum' is 'monere' — which does not only mean to warn, but also to instruct, and forms the basis of the modern English demonstrate. Thus, the monster is also a sign or instruction. This benign interpretation was proposed by Saint Augustine, who did not see the monster as inherently evil, but as part of the natural design of the world."

A monster is a sign, a warning, an instruction or advice, that something is wrong. It is helpful to pay attention to what monsters are telling us. (As an aside, and certainly a relevant one, the word "money" is apparently derived from
"moneta" and again means a warning or demonstration. Now put your Thinking Cap on wonder about that for a while.)

What I have learned from my love of monsters is that there is no such thing as Good or Evil. Specifically, there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil. Unfortunately, when people think of good and evil, they are way too quick to judge something as either all-good or all-bad.

"He did that because he is evil," some people say. "We were attacked for our goodness because they are evil."

It's always "We are good and they are evil."

Yet in fiction, monsters are often sympathetic. Think Frankenstein, or Quasimodo (that guy above). They're monsters, they do bad things, but they are not evil. And since fiction imitates life...there are no purely evil monsters in real life. We just define them as evil. But they're not, because there is always some good in them.

A sympathetic monster is one whom people consider pure evil, even though he's not.

If there are sympathetic monsters, then there are monsters who are not sympathetic. What defines them? They are the ones who consider other people pure evil, and so believe they have the right to kill them. An unsympathetic monster is the one afflicted with Hubris and who believes he has the right to murder those he defines as pure evil.

Stalin was an unsympathetic monster. So was Pol Pot.

When you speak of monsters you have to also speak of the archetype of the horror story: Order invaded by Chaos, "Good" attacking "Evil." Stephen King, in his book, Danse Macabre, referred to it as the Apollonian attacked by the Dionysian.

Although King did not elaborate on it, Dionysus was a fertility god. And in Dionysian riots, people are sacrificed to "renew" society.

The true monsters are the ones who believe in sacrificing certain people, whom they see as evil, since they believe that society will be reborn. They are self-righteous, they believe they are always right, they see their opponents as bad people on whom they blame all problems.

Nietzsche understood what was going on. In one of his essays, "Dionysus vs. the Crucified," he wrote about two totally different religions — one based on taking the point of view of the victimizer, and the other that takes the point of view of the victim.

When the point of view of the victimizer is taken, the victim deserves what he gets. He is a sacrifice. It is not the true monster who is sacrificed. It is the monsters who do the sacrificing.

Dracula, for example, sacrificed innocent people to renew himself and keep himself alive. That is why he is not sympathetic, unlike Frankenstein, Quasimodo, or the Wolfman (who didn't want to be the Wolfman and was horrified that he was).

I see this sacrifice of the innocent every day. For example, the infamous Dead White Males who are supposedly responsible for every problem in the world. Or "patriarchy," again responsible for every problem in the world.

Once these "monsters" are gone, society will be renewed. Supposedly. In reality, no. And it is the true monsters doing the sacrificing, who want to destroy the order of society because they think something better will arise. Which it won't.

The Russian writer Dmitri Merejkowski saw the same thing that Nietzsche did: there is a religion in which Man is sacrificed to Man. It is the monsters doing the sacrificing by claiming the innocent are the real monsters and deserve what they get.

The French philosopher and theologian Rene Girard, author of Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (and who was influenced by Nietzsche), thought the function of a sacrifice was to renew society, however imperfectly, and another theologian, Walter Wink, agreed with him, calling it "the myth of redemptive violence," i.e., the world can be reborn through violence and sacrifice of the innocent.

Nietzsche predicted the worship of Dionysus and his destructive frenzies would lead to the carnage of the 20th Century — and he was right. He also predicted it would last beyond the 20th Century.

Dionysus belongs to what Mircea Eliade called "the myth of the eternal return." This myth has roots in non-Christian classical civilization, and in it the creation of society is followed by the degeneration of it and then by regeneration.

In other words, the real monsters destroy society by turning the innocent in faux monsters and sacrificing them. Society collapses and rebuilds itself...then the cycle repeats.

In Indian philosophy we are in what is known as the Kali Yuga. It means "Age of the Demon." Age of the Monster.

The problem is that most people cannot see who the real monsters are. Only a very small minority can identify them. And only a few listen to these prophets. The rest mostly mock and attack them.

Freud was a nut, but even a nut has to be right every once in a while. A blind pig and an acorn. A stopped clock. Cliches have truth in them, otherwise they wouldn't be cliches.

Probably the smartest thing Freud ever said was that the two most important things in life are Love and Work. The full quote is, "Love and work are the cornerstone of our humanness." For most people, that is. And I have found they are related.

These days, the economy has just about collapsed, contrary to government lies. Perhaps that should be one word? Governmentlies.

Oh, there are good-paying jobs if you have a specialized degree. But very, very few people can achieve them. Say, an MA in Organic Chemistry. Almost no one can get one. I sure couldn't.

It used to be there were plenty of high-paying jobs. When I graduated high school if a boy wanted to he could go straight to the steel-mill, start out at what today would be about $25,000, and in five years or so be making $50,000. The pay usually topped out at about $70,000. The jobs weren't even that hard, although I knew guys squished by cranes or electrocuted.

And let's not forget that $15,000 in 1979 would be $47,000 in 2013.

Those jobs are gone, thanks to government interference in the economy.

Now if you can't find a decent job, it's sure going to be awful hard to start a family. You know - home, kids, family, BBQ in the back yard, a dog. All that fun stuff.

Even if you do have a home and a family, and are not making decent money (which these days is not your fault) what are the chances you're going to be happy and instead be consumed with stress?

The only thing that really matters is the middle-class. The poor tend to be welfare parasites and they are always with us. Many of the rich are also parasites who use the laws to enrich themselves at everyone elses' expense.

Now the middle-class is shrinking, so we are tending toward the Rich and the Poor. This may work in the Third World (which is chaotic and full of every imaginable crime) but it won't work here. Which is why we are looking at some sort of revolution/collapse.

People respond to economic incentives. I have forgotten how many stupid no-class women I have known who've had kids without being married. They get all kinds of welfare benefits, and even with them they are still stupid and poor. They don't have any decent work (they don't want it) and their idea of love is to go from bum to bum.

Then I've known those high-IQ-idiot schooled woman (they certainly aren't smart or educated) who spent their 20s getting degrees and finding a career, thinking a
smart handsome rich man is going to be theirs for the taking when they decide to settle down, then are outraged when they hit the wall and those guys, or any guy, wants nothing to do with them because they want a younger and more pleasant woman.

They seem to think men are impressed by their achievements. They're not. And they're not afraid of "strong, independent" women (which don't exist because these woman are 100% dependent on men's achievements). They're just not impressed by their self-delusion and general idiocy.

I've pointed out before I don't think women can truly get their lives together without a man. And they have been lied to by the media that they can, then end up as bitter, hostile man-hating spinsters because they tried to Have It All and find out it's not possible.

It's all about Love and Work. There has to be a balance. And some people never find it because they don't know how. The culture used to tell us how to achieve these things, but not anymore.

In some ways, today, things have become a nightmare. It's because things are out of balance. I never get tired of saying this, but the word "monster" means a warning, a demonstration, a portent. And when things are really out of balance...that's when we really get the monstrous.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Some years ago a historian told me, "Never let anyone tell your story for you." I was also told this again a few weeks ago, which reminded me of the first time.

This historian didn't explain, but he didn't have to: I instinctively knew the unstated rest of his comment: "Because if you do, they will destroy your culture. They will destroy the myths and rites and rituals that hold it together. They'll destroy your community, and the meaning and importance that supports it."

I also thought of this saying when a friend, very much a history buff himself, told me he had read the textbook given his 16-year-old son in his Advanced Placement history class in high school. He had expected to tear the book apart, but found, to his amazement, that it was a very accurate text. He said the author had even put the word "neocon" in quotes, suggesting, quite correctly, they are neither new nor conservative.

The reason my friend thought he was going to shred the book is because he had read the textbook given to the non-AP students. It was terrible, he told me, so terrible he visited the principal to complain about it, because he wanted it removed.

He gave to me as an example the fact the book listed how many Japanese were interned in the U.S. during WWII. and how many Jews were supposedly killed in every country in Europe, but did not list how many Americans were killed in the War between the States, World War I, World War II, or Vietnam.

When my friend asked the principal what percentage of Americans died in Japanese POW camps in WWII (an easty-to-remember 50%), the principal, whose Ph.D. was in Psychology (which I consider a worthless degree) did not know. He had heard of Audie Murphy was but had never heard of Dick Bong.

The principal also told my friend he was the first parent to come into his office to complain about a textbook.

I decided years ago the way to destroy a culture is to take over education, the government, the media, and the churches, and attack the dominant culture. Bit by bit it can be destroyed. It's letting your enemies tell your story for you, And without stories about themselves, and a history, they are reallly no people at all.

There are two main institutions I see as enemies of the United States: Hollywood, and Washington, D,C,, and the schools that support D.C.: Harvard, Princeton, Yale. D.C. is the home of the genocidal behemoth that is the federal government, and Hollywood is home to every possible imaginable perversion,

The people who live in these two places -- the East and West Coasts -- refer to everything inbetween them as Flyover Land -- the main purpose of which is to produce cannon fodder for D.C.'s wars. I consider it the Real America, and see Hollywood and D.C. as trying to destroy this America and impose their "culture" on it,

Here's an example: when Michael Medved writes a book called Hollywood vs. America, he's not really talking about Hollywood vs. America, even though I'm sure he thinks he is. Medved supports the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the American Empire. He supports D.C. against Hollywood, and tries to convince people the "real America" supports the U.S.'s current wars for oil, empire, and Israel. In his world, the Real America supports D.C. Indeed, the Real America is D.C.

The culture that D.C. wishes to impose on America is one in which everyone is "patriotic" and supports its endless wars to "improve" the world. I am reminded of the sayings of both Jesus and Aesop: all tyrants call themselves benefactors.

This culture in D.C. claims we are the Good Guys under attack by the Evil Ones who wish to Do Us In, and will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. Anyone who believes otherwise, in this worldview, is unpatriotic and indeed a traitor. That's the "culture" that D.C. tries to impose on the U.S.

That "us vs. them" mentality reminds me of a comment by Hermann Goering: "All you have to do is to tell them [the public] they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Hollywood, on the other hand, tries to impose on America a worldview which is anti-white male and pro-anyone- who-isn't-white-male. To it the worst place in the U.S. is the South, which is full gun nuts, ranting Bible thumpers, and people who pine for the good ol' days of the KKK.

Hollywood tries to impose, more unpleasant things on America, such as the movie, Brokeback Mountain. Unfortunately, whatever passes for "Walt Disney" these days allowed a convicted pedophile to direct a creepy little film, Powder, which contained scenes of half-naked, muscular, hairless teenage boys showering together.

Hollywood seems to think everyone in Flyover Land is almost exactly the same. I once saw a movie in which the banker is a small Illinois town wore a cowboy hat and a string tie, had a Texan accent, and listened to horrid country music. Such people don't exist in Illinois, a state in which I was born and spent many years.

But to Hollywood, a Texan is a Midwesterner is a Southerner. Almost all the same; there is almost no difference. Only the East and West Coasts really count. Flyover Land is peopled with....who knows exactly what?

Hollywood and D.C. have succeeded so well with their Gramscian march through the institutions and their capturing the culture that many Americans now have little understanding of the original beliefs on which this country was founded -- that of small government, decentralization, freedom, and a military to protect the country, not create an Empire.

How many people these days have heard of the America First Committee, which attempted to keep the U.S. out of WWII? Charles Lindbergh, anyone? Hello? 800,000 members, 135,000 in Illinois alone?

Find anyone in D.C.,or Hollywood, or any grade school, middle school, high school, or college, who knows about this committee. You will find only a handful.

I wonder how many Southerners these days know about the Southern Agrarians, with their critiques of what is essentially materialist and mercantilist Yankee culture? Or that the main proponent today is the 79-year-old poet and novelist Wendell Berry, who is currently fighting fighting the blowing up of mountain tops in Kentucky by coal companies?

Berry also said, "We'd be nothing without stories." He's right about that. It reminds me of something Ray Bradbury said: "Metaphors are the center of life." Any story that truly resonate with us has to be metaphorical, which is essentially the manipulation of images.

Everyone needs myths to live by

l define "myths" as "the stories that give meaning and structure to life". The French theorist Jacques Rancière calls them its "dominant fiction," society’s ideological “reality, ” a way that society uses images and stories to give members of a social structure, a consensus in how they identify themselves.

People need these myths, and will have them, even if they claim they don't have them and don't need them These mythic beliefs give order, meaning, importance, and community to people's lives.

Even libertarians have them. I've know libertarians who are believers in such "myths" as Techno-Paganism, Discordianism, Objectivism, and various forms of German Neo-Paganism such as Asatru and Odinism. Some have gone so far as to worship the free market itself, including such non-free-market corporate mercantilist entities as Wal-Mart, and believe harmony (perhaps even Utopia) will flow from everyone in the world being united in their desire for McMansions, SUVs, and big-screen plasma TVs.

These kind of people believe fanatical Christians, fanatical Jews, and fanatical Muslims can peaceably share the same land, ignoring the history of the world, and humanity tribal nature.

This (always non-existent) Utopia will never happen, because people with other cultures, in other countries, don't want foreigners telling their stories for them, and trying to destroy their myths, and impose other, unwanted ones on them. The U.S. government is trying that today. and before them, for some 300 years, the British.

The people who believe in the various myths I listed are trying to come up with a history, and something to believe in, because their original beliefs have been destroyed by D.C. and Hollywood -- by those who have captured the culture. Who have captured education, the media, the government, religion.

Since many people don't like what this country has turned into, they are rebelling and seeking new beliefs to live by, It's a reaction to the imposition of cultures they don't like. It's a fascinating thing.

People are going to have to take back their culture, to tell their own stories, to not let others do it for them. That means taking back the schools, the media, the churches, the government. It will, unfortunately, take a generation or more -- the same length of time it took to lose everything.

"A desire to give them the same education, and, as a consequence, to propose the same goals for them, is a dangerous chimera. . . . The day when, misunderstanding the inferior occupations which nature has given her, women leave the home and take part in our battles; on this day a social revolution will begin, and everything that maintains the sacred ties of the family will disappear." - an amusing quote from 1879.

Oh, if only parents or schools or churches had told us these things!

I'm old enough to see what happens when women don't have a man in their lives. You know - home, husband and children. It's not pretty. Actually, it's pretty ugly. And it's clear that most women are less happy after feminism.

I first began to notice this problem in college, when I started to encounter overweight, plain/unattractive girls with hostile attitudes. Even then I knew they had problems with men, obviously because they couldn't get any - except maybe for a one-night stand, after which the guy said, "See ya."

Such girls are why I often wonder if ugly girls shouldn't get free plastic surgery.

Then when I graduated I began to encounter divorced women, usually without children. Again the hostility, and just like the college girls, blamed all their problems on men. In fact, the hostility and the blaming men just oozed out of them.

Some of these divorced hostile women were pudgy, but most were scrawny, and often said such bizarre things I always suspected they were on psychiatric medication. But then, 25% of women are.

It was the same things over and over: hostile and blaming their problems on men. And every one of them had a failed relationship with a man.

Because of my experiences, I think that what most women want is home, husband and children, and when they don't get those things, they permanently blow a gasket. Most especially after the understanding hits them that their ovaries have shriveled up.

Since to have home, husband and children, it has always been necessary for men to be highly-paid, so they can support the family. That doesn't happen anymore. So now women have to work, and I have found many end up not liking that and want out of it.

I was recently standing next to three women, who were talking about their families. One said to the others, "I wish I could go back to being a stay-at-home mom. I had it so good."

I don't particularly believe in "educating" women. Many of their jobs are make-work. Degrees in Human Resources, followed by a make-work job. Parasites. And women with Liberal Arts degrees? More parasites.

Now if a woman can get a degree in something useful, say STEM, more power to her. As for women who say, "I'm happy with a career and no husband and children," there's one thing that bursts their bubble: men created everything in the world. Of course, these women will say they're "oppressed by patriarchy" and the rest of that silliness. In other word, they're blaming all their problems on men!

So all women are unable to get their lives together without the accomplishment of men, present...and past.

Men are supposed to be patriarch/protectors. Women are receptive/reactive (which means they react to what men do, which is why we've basically screwed ourselves by setting things up so women reacted the wrong ways).

But I have found it never works when too many women are working. Families never form or break up easily. And as for single mothers - monsters. The problems associated with the children of single mothers are legion. And the women often ignore those problems and blame them on other people. Specifically, men.

The family is the basic unit of civilization. Once it goes, so goes society.

I have never seen a divorced/older spinster who had her life together and was happy. The MSM pretends they exist, but I have no respect for them and don't believe a thing they say. It's all propaganda.

This almost appears to be a conspiracy. Some think it is. I don't. But whatever the cause, it's exactly what is needed to make society go backwards to the point it collapses.

"I see a lot of women without kids, in their 40s, who are miserable and I see a lot of women after they have children saying, ‘What the fuck was I doing? Why was I doing fashion PR? I was doing seating plans for a fashion show telling what people sit in what chair. Now I’m shaping human life." - Gavin McInnes

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Not much good has come from feminism. A little bit, perhaps (after all,
nothing is totally evil). But being that feminism is almost exclusively
left-wing – and leftists are emotionally four years old – it has done
far, far more damage than good.

Two of the most destructive four-year-olds, who conned a lot of women,
and quite a few men, were Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Neither of
them, being Compleat Leftist Hypocrites, followed in the slightest their
prescriptions for other women. They were female children who grew
stronger but never grew up. Both, not surprisingly, completely ignored
the damage their ideas were responsible for when women put them into
effect in their lives.

Leftists hate society and many lesbians hate men (although both deny
their hate and project it on “rightists.” This projection is typical of
any four-year-old.). Since feminism is leftist/lesbian, how could good
come from such hate? The fact this hate disguises itself as “justice” or
“fairness” is something bad ideas always do. Evil always pretends to be
good.

Feminism is also parasitical, and only exists because of the technology
and civilization created by men. If civilization collapsed and went
backwards 200 years, do you think feminism would exist, when people had
to spend most of their time merely surviving? Luxury and leisure –
thanks to men’s creativity and inventiveness – allowed feminism to
flourish.

One of the bad things feminism has done is essentially demolish
chivalry. I get the impression that many people don’t really know what
the word means anymore – to be disciplined, to protect the weak and
helpless, to be loyal and generous, to tell the truth.

Sounds like the Boy Scouts, doesn’t it? (By the way, I was in both the
Cub Scouts and the Boy Scouts – and at their best they are very good
organizations for young boys).

Chivalry originally exemplified the better warrior virtues, and in some
ways still does. To protect the weak and helpless you’d better have some
warrior spirit in you, or you’re not going to be much help at all. And
it does take some courage to tell the truth when you don’t want to.

Chivalry came from Christianity, which is close to being on life support in this country (you might want to read about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table to have some understanding of chivalry). And putting women on the front lines in combat is the antithesis of chivalry. How any decent man can support that is beyond me.

For that matter The Canterbury Tales also speaks of chivalry. Unfortunately neither the tales of King Arthur or The Canterbury Tales is taught anymore. Or even Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of Tarzan and writer of those wonderful tales of Barsoom (what we call Mars).

It was from the first Burroughs' novel I read - A Fighting Man of Mars - I found what chivalrous behavior was, although Burroughs never used the word "chivalrous." He did what all good story-tellers do - he didn't tell; he showed. But then, Burroughs was born in 1875.

Hell, even Superman was chivalrous, before the modern version gave up his citizenship (there goes Truth, Justice and the American Way).

As I’ve noted several times, the Manosphere blogs are a reaction to feminism, which blames nearly every problem in the world on men. Specifically, white men
(“The white race [white men] is the cancer of human history,” lied the
envious leftist-lesbian hater Susan Sontag). In response to this
hostility, most men have ceased to be more than minimally chivalrous
because of all the abuse heaped on them, and have become hostile in
return. What else could you expect? What goes around comes around.

In 2010 (not 1971, as you’d expect) I had two women tell me, “Men are
responsible for all the problems in the world.” Both were spinsters on
psychiatric drugs (I can’t call it medication), who lacked husband, home
and children. They tried desperately to fill that void with cats and
jobs they called “careers.” I occasionally wonder how they ever thought
they’d get what the wanted with such hostility instilled in their
characters through four decades of lies/propaganda/brainwashing.

One concept in the Manosphere is that of “the Alpha.” Alphas are
supposed to be good-looking guys with money who get all the women and
lead wonderful lives. It’s the Manosphere ideal of a man. At least, to
the more bitter Manosphere bloggers.

That ideal definition of an Alpha hasn’t been my experience. Mine has
been that many of them are drug-abusing cowards who ruin their lives by
middle-age. The word that has historically been used to describe them is
“cad” (the dictionary definition of that word is “a man who behaves
crudely or irresponsibly toward women”).

I've had women tell me cads are lousy in bed. After all, since it's always about them, why should they care about you. Hump 'em and dump 'em is their motto.

Actually, a cad could be considered the Bad Alpha. A good Alpha is the
exact opposite of a cad. A Good Alpha would be a chivalrous man.

A cad exhibits in his character and behavior most of the Seven Deadly
Sins. For him these traits are chronic since they are part of what he
is. I have found that all of them show lust, greed and gluttony. Ennui,
too, since most of them cannot tolerate being alone, so they go from
woman to woman – none of whom they get emotionally involved with.

Four out of seven is pretty bad. I could make an argument they’re
afflicted with Biblical Pride (what the Greeks called Hubris) since they
never believe what they are will catch up with them – they’re convinced
they’re above the moral laws written on their own hearts. Eventually
those laws mow them down, as they always do (one told me, “I got a taste
of my own medicine”). Then their lives collapse.

That makes five out of seven sins. That’s a terrible score. I generally
don’t see wrath or envy, although one cad I know quite well nearly had a
seizure when one of the very few women he was seriously interested in
when we were in college dumped him for me.

Perhaps most cads do show wrath, since I have found they don’t really
like or respect women. Not that the more foolish and naïve women can see
this contempt. Or the lies and attempts at manipulation.

For that matter, cads are also short on the Four Cardinal Virtues of
Prudence, Justice, Temperance (restraint) and Fortitude (courage).
(They’re called “cardinal” because they are of fundamental importance
for morality - “cardinal” means “hinge,” as in on which everything else
swings.)

The opposite of a cad would be a man with self-discipline and honesty.
He’d have most of the opposite of the Seven Deadly Sins. He’d have the
Seven Heavenly Virtues of prudence, justice, courage, temperance, faith,
hope and charity (actually the first four are the Four Cardinal Virtues
and the last three are the Three Theological Virtues). He’d be a
grown-up Boy Scout – and that is a fine thing to be.

The word “virtue” is an interesting word indeed. It translates as “the
powers of man.” Obviously, the Seven Deadly Sins are not virtues, in any
culture in the world.

For that matter, the word “sin” isn’t accurate. It comes from the word hamartia, which comes from archery and means “to miss the mark.” That’s why current translations of Jesus’ sayings use “You have missed the mark”
instead of “You have sinned.”

Incidentally, the world “repent” is from the Greek word metanoia,
and the correct translation is “to change your heart and mind.” So,
“repent from your sins” means “You have missed the mark so change your
heart and mind.”

There is nothing in that phrase about changing yourself because of any
“sin” against God. The offense is against the health and integrity of
your own character (the word “holy” comes from the same root word as
“health” and “wholeness” – and that is why health and integrity is the
same thing).

The Seven Virtues would show themselves in chivalrous behavior, something that the Seven Deadly Sins don’t support at all.

These things – sins and virtues – are not taught anymore, even in
church. They certainly aren’t taught in the catastrophes that our public
schools have become. Even private schools don’t teach them. They don’t
know they should.

Instead, men, trying to understand what is going on, have made a detour
in the Manosphere concepts of Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Omega – inaccurate,
simplistic ideas, none of which support any kind of civilized,
chivalrous behavior.

Those Manosphere terms are from evolutionary psychology, and neither
evolutionary theory nor psychology is a science. What is a science, and
has been for over a thousand years if not longer, is the effect of
“sins” and virtues on the life a person leads (these studies used to be
called “natural philosophy” before they were shattered into worthless
fields such as sociology and economics).

A society based on the Seven Deadly Sins wouldn’t be a society worth
living in, except perhaps if you were a psychopath. And psychopaths are
closer to monsters than human beings.

On the other hand, a society based on the Seven Heavenly Virtues and the
Four Cardinal Virtues wouldn’t be a bad place at all. I think everyone
instinctively know that. Unless, of course, if you’re a deluded,
destructive leftist.

I’m a bit surprised it’s taken over 40 years for this reaction against
feminism to manifest itself. Of course, when something is destructive
there always is a reaction against it. Unfortunately, it’s going to take
a while for that pendulum to swing back into sanity again.

This swinging back of the pendulum means feminism is on its way out. Its
leaders will die and the world will be shut of them. It’ll take less
than a generation before they’re gone. If we’re lucky, far less.

"I, however, place economy among the first and most important of virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." - Thomas Jefferson

I work for myself. I don't make as much money as I used to, but I don't care. Why? Because I'm free (I don't have any credit cards and I'm not in debt). You're not free when you're a wage-slave so in debt you'll be a slave until you die - which will most probably happen when you keel over at age 75 while being a greeter at Wal-Mart. For minimum wage.

For example, sometimes I go out in the evening, smoke a cigar, and watch the sun go down, usually with my girlfriend, sometimes by myself. It's better than TV.

After all, before TV, what did people do? As for my girlfriend, she loves making me sammiches. For that matter, if a woman won't make you a sammich, dump her.

The word "monster" means a warning and a demonstration.

I am reminded of some of the lyrics to the Kinks' "Victoria": "'though I'm poor I am free."

In fact, I would like every man withdraw from being a wage-slave. Imagine how fast this obscenity would collapse - and the faster the better, so we can start over. We're going to have to do it because I cannot see the current situation being reformed.

Perhaps if there were lots of decent high-paying jobs, as happened until wages peaked in January, 1973, I'd be more liable to work harder, buy a house, and all the rest of the now-existent American Dream. But since the traditional American Dream is gone, I have to make my own. And so do you.

The largest employer in America is Wal-Mart, and the second largest employer is actually a temp agency (Kelly Services). McDonalds encourages its workers to get welfare, so we are subsidizing these "free-market" employers. It may be hard to believe, but about ten percent of jobs are at temp agencies.

One of the reasons for this wage-slavery is because women have moved into the workforce, driving wages down. So the more people who participate, the more people who are subjugated. In fact, the attack on patriarchy has led to more women entering workforce, while patriarchy previously allowed them to stay in their homes. One thing that has to be done is to get most women out of the workforce. This won't happen until some sort of collapse.

My father was a general contractor - and a high-school drop-out. He was able to provide a middle-class living. He once told me, a few years ago, "What I did I could not do today." I did not say anything. Other people have told me the same thing, including the wife of a man who was a CPA - and he graduated with a C average from a small college I had never heard of. Yet they had what I would refer to as an upper-middle-class house.

I blame these problems on the government's interference in the economy. It's astonishing how badly the government can screw things up. It's like it's some kind of demon casting spells and laying waste left and right. It's almost as if the purpose of the State is to crush and humiliate us.

I've pointed out before that if wages had kept going up as they had during the '50s, the average salary would be about $90,000 to $100,000 a year. But again, they peaked in January, 1973, have bounced up and down since then (just a little) and have recently been declining.

I get the impression that the State/Corporations wants all of us to live in cinder-block apartments, eat rice, and work 12 hours a day, six days a week. North Korea, anyone?

Apparently we're supposed to be replaceable cogs in a machine. I decline to do this.

I also wonder what would happen if everyone refused to go into debt? That would be something to see!

I have thought for many years one of the purposes of life is to be the best you can be at what you are good at. It's why the ancient Greeks said that eudaimonia (flourishing/well-being) is achieve through arete or excellence. Unfortunately it's getting harder and harder to achieve that goal.

The Machine is near breaking down. It's always broken down in the past, without exception. Why should we be any different?

I operate on that old wise saying: "Enough is as good as a feast." After all, if you can't be happy on $40,000 a year, you're not going to be happy on 40 million.

We have, unfortunately, become Outsiders and Outcasts in our own country, so we have to make our own way.

"You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." - Robert Heinlein

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

"Most people who complain about the backward, violent, vengeful side of the Culture of Honor, as contrasted with the progressive, peaceful, neutral-third-party side of the Culture of Law, overlook honor's twin -- hospitality. Honor means, you f*ck me, I f*ck you ten times harder back. But hospitality means, you host me, I'll host you ten times as lavishly next time around. The Culture of Honor is therefore really a Culture of Reciprocity, only one-half of which is "an eye for an eye." Guided by a framework of hospitality, pastoralist peoples can expel an immigrant group for having worn out its welcome." - Dusk in Autumn

There are two things I've learned from the Greeks. One is that the phrase in Declaration of Independence, "the pursuit of happiness," is a mistranslation of the Greek, eudaimonia, which means "well-being/flourishing." It's achieved by arete, or excellence.

The second thing I learned is the concept of Hubris. Hubris originally meant to humiliate someone in public (often with a sexual connotation to it) and the Greeks considered it so obscene they banned it from the theater.

Later it evolved to mean a kind of grandiosity (these days called narcissism) and it still meant to humiliate people. Hubris is followed by Nemesis, which means to exact revenge.

Revenge is the attempt to erase shame/humiliation and replace it with pride. Hence, we get that scene from Breaking Bad where the woman's "boyfriend" says such bad things about her that she kills him to restore her self-image.

My experience has been that I don't see a lot of people being excellent at something and so achieving flourishing/well-being, but I see an awful lot of Hubris/narcissism leading to people seeking to restore their pride through revenge. And it just astonishes me the number of people I see who can't handle the slightest bit of authority without it going to their heads and then attempting to humiliate people.

And they don't even know they're doing. And they are just astonished when people get back at them.

Example: nearly every school shooter was bullied and so got revenge. And these dumbass cops shooting innocent dogs and crashing into people's houses and murdering them are going to be shocked when it comes back on them. Jason Dorner, for example, is a warning shot across the bow.

Dorner may been been a monster, as were the school shooters, but I am again going to point out that the word "monster" means a demonstration and a warning.

This is why I pay attention to monsters so I can determine what they are protesting. Because if you don't and instead do the foolish and naive thing and just dismiss them as "evil" you are completely missing the lesson.

When people see their lives as about doing the best they can, their lives, and society, will improve. When they don't see anything wrong with humiliating people, their lives, and society will go backwards, and sometimes collapse.

I'd say that people who are busy doing their best don't want to humiliate people instead want to help them do their best. For example, isn't that what a teacher is ultimately supposed to be about?

Because the lesson is: if you continually humiliate people they are going to turn on you and do to you what was done to them. Perhaps, ultimately, they will do worse to their tormentors that was was done to them.

Such as, in one form or another, smashing their heads flat with an ATM machine.

It was single women who overwhelmingly voted for Obama and helped put him into office (they also put Hitler in office). By the way, when he was voted in, I thought, "We've crossed the Rubicon. He's going to be the worst President the U.S. has ever had. We've crossed the line to destruction, and we cannot go back." And I've been right.

I have a hard time understanding the minds of some people, but most especially dumb ones (one of my friends told me, "The smart understand the stupid a lot more than the stupid understand the smart"). When it comes to government, they seem to think it has its own money to dole out. Or else "the rich" have trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars and all we have to do is take it from them and spread it around equally. Then things will be better, lots better.

My experience has been a lot of women are natural socialists/fascists and don't know it. When you tell them that's what they are, they don't believe it. For one thing they don't exactly know what a socialist or fascist is.

Of all the women I've met I've never seen one who truly understood economics or political science. I've met a lot who think they do, but don't. I know there are some who understand both, but they are the proverbial needle in a haystack.

Women in the past were not allowed to vote. This wasn't an oversight. I'm sure smarter guys in the past looked at what women were saying and basically said, "Holy shit! They're don't know what they're talking about!"

St. Paul went so far as to write women should not speak in public - and I've seen their embarrassing ranting and raving - and he forbid them from teaching (and I've seen what they've done to education, too).

In fact, smarter women in the past didn't want women to have the vote. They essentially said, "We've got the best job of all - we're responsible for making sure the next generation grows up to be the best they can possibly be."

For that matter, smart women don't much like other women (hell, most women hate each other) and prefer to associate with men. And most women prefer a male boss. I've seen way too many screw-up women in management. And, of course, they don't know it.

But you don't really have many women wanting to devote their lives to the next generation. It's easy to tell when this is happening: people aren't reproducing and their numbers are falling. (And why do so many of "women's issues" revolve around a) abortion b) abortion c) abortion and d) birth control?)

And for some strange reason I don't quite understand, where men go, women follow like dogs. They also seem to think men have it better than men, and if they tag along their lives will improve. I can only say I believe it is based on envy.

Of course, that tagging along doesn't mean following men into being taxi drivers or carpenters, both of which I was. It also doesn't mean following men into cigar stores, which I have seen them do, then cough and stagger out.

It does mean following men into indoor air-conditioned jobs. Yet even that is not quite right, because it doesn't apply to all women. Some end up working 12-hour overnight shifts instead of staying home with the kids. Or either they become poverty-stricken, working poorly-paid jobs at fast-food places or nursing homes. Then they have to get welfare to make ends meet - which productive workers have to involuntarily support them.

Ultimately women have cut their own throats. And wealthier women (which they became because of men) throw poorer women under the bus. And men, dumbasses that many are, have let women do these things to themselves.

A lot of women want all the advantages of being a man and a woman but don't want the responsibilities of either. The first time I told that to a women she just glared at me and didn't say a word. The man with us just looked thoughtful and said, "You know, you're right."

What would happen if women were not allowed to vote? For one thing, I doubt we'd ever have a Democratic president ever again, or many women politicians. Think the monster know as Nancy Pelosi. And if any are allowed to vote, it should only be married ones.

In fact, I cannot see a downside to women having the vote taken from them. I do see a lot of upsides, though.

When I graduated college it cost about $1000 a year. I had no debt. I did borrow $800 to establish credit, and I paid it back before I graduated. Now if I had to go today...I wouldn't go.

While I was growing up my father was a general contractor, and I started building houses with him when I was 12. He wanted me to take over the business but I hated it. Sweat in the summer and cold in the winter.

But I can build a house from the ground up. And not too long ago, my father told me, "If I tried to do now what I did when I started, I could not do it." Because the economy is so bad, and has been since 2009. I haven't seen it pick up, either.

Today, I would not go to college unless I got a degree in something that was in demand. Otherwise you are just wasting your time. And I would not go into debt to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars that students are doing today. You cannot discharge those debts in bankruptcy, thanks to George Bush.

However, I did know one woman who owes about $17,000 and will never pay a cent. Because she went on disability. That's better than a 66-year-old man I know who gets $1000 a month of Social Security and gets $250 a month taken out of pay off his student loans.

I do know there are well-paying jobs that don't require degrees. Computer Systems Analyst, for one. But that requires a certain kind of person.

What you really want to do is go into something that cannot be outsourced.

I blame all these problems on the government, which is not your friend. It is your enemy. If we had a real free market we'd have plenty of jobs, including for the stupid who can do little than work at fast-food places (McDonalds is busy hiring the "mentally-challenged," which I have seen myself).

As far as I'm concerned, the State and Corporations want to turn us into impoverished, life-long slaves, to enrich themselves at the expensive of everyone else. And it is always better to be a free man than a slave.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

It's a cliche but like cliches it's true: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And "good intentions" are even worse when the possessor is blind and arrogant. The word for that is "hubris."

Some people who think they are trying to help people are actually torturers and executioners.

Hubris applies even to doctors. After all, there does exist the saying, "What is the difference between God and a doctor?" "God doesn't think he is a doctor."

I am not a fan of doctors, especially the type who is caught in AMA groupthink. I am especially not a fan of those who treat "mental illness."

Even in the recent past the treatments were horrendous. They still are today, for that matter.

Think lobotomies. Not so long as they considered a panacea for all mental illnesses. Walter Freeman, who created lobotomies and only died in 1972, lobotomized thousands of people. About 3400, actually.

He refined it to using an icepick through the eye socket, tapped in with a hammer.

His procedure did no good whatsoever. Many of his patients died of cerebral hemorrhages. Some he operated on two and three times. So why did people allow it? Because they trusted him as a doctor.

Then there was Ewan Cameron, who used electroshock treatment (ECT). He used it to annihilate peoples' personalities and then tried to install a new one using recorded messages played through earphones.

Some of his patients forgot their own names. One forever got lost in his house, looking for his mother who had died decades ago.

Both Freeman and Cameron should have spent their lives in prison, but did not.

Things are better today...maybe.

Let's take psychiatric drugs. The SSRIs are associated with increases in murder/suicide, and the literature warns about it. The soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan having been killing their spouses and themselves, and all of them have been stuffed to the gills with anti-depressants.

Most of the school shooters have been on anti-depressants. The women who have engaged in bizarre murders of their children -- such as Susan Smith, who rolled a car with her kids into in a lake -- were on anti-depressants.

In the past murder/suicide was overwhelmingly a male thing, but now with these anti-depressants women have achieved par with men.

These days no patient would allow any doctor to lobotomize them or annihilate their personalities with ECT. But tens of millions of people seem to have no problem with chemical lobotomies.

I recently had a retired doctor tell me that he told his patients to stay away from doctors. "You know when you need to see one," he told me. "Otherwise, stay away from them."

I know a woman from college. She was bright, funny and a ditzy flirt. She was diagnosed as bipolar at 25 and put on a cocktail of psychiatric medications. After 25 years she shows signs of paranoia and delusion, and still suffers from anxiety and depression. Her memory is shot.

Carrie Fisher, she of "Star Wars" fame, was also diagnosed as bipolar. She said she takes a dozen pills a day and undergoes electroshock, she admitted makes her forget things three days, including who she saw and where she went.

How exactly have any of these psychiatric drugs helped her or anyone else?

Why do doctors do these things? Some claim they're evil, or it's about money. I'll allude to what I wrote in the first paragraph: they want to help people, only they don't know how. They get confused by their ego, and power, and yes indeed money. "I have all these things, so I must know what I'm talking about." Nope.

A good doctor is humble, always willing to admit his wrong, and always willing to learn.

In the long run, the use of psychiatric drugs will change, once there are enough murder and suicides -- and lawsuits. Then they will go into the garbage heap of history, along with lobotomies and ECT.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

I've been reading a spate of articles about RoboMcDonalds because the workers want $15 an hour, sexbots....things like that. Just remember: there is always a downside to technology. After, nothing is perfect!

Some years ago I read an article in which a young woman told a nun she had been raped after getting drunk. When the nun quizzed her about the details of the case, the advice she gave her was:

"Don't drink with strange men."

I'll add this: don't drink with dumb high school and college jocks.

Also: don't drink until you're semi-conscious.

Most of my drinking was done in high school, and none of us ever got dead slobbering drunk. I don't understand why anyone would want to get that drunk.

Apparently parents don't talk to their kids about drinking, except perhaps to say stupid things like "Just don't do it." Which never works.

There is a weird self-deluded streak in this country that seems to think if you forbid something - or else ignore it - the problem goes away.

There is no such thing as "a rape culture." The closest we have to one is naive teenage and college girls getting blind drunk with dumb jocks. They're just asking for big trouble - especially when dealing with boys with no honor.

Friday, October 18, 2013

"I've been around the ruling class all my life, and I've been quite aware of their total contempt for the people of the country." - Gore Vidal

People never learn. If we can just get so-and-so in office...Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney (all of them the same person)...then things will be different. They won’t.

George Bush (the second one, who was more stupid and vicious than his father) once said he didn’t understand poor people. And this from a man who never had a job in his life and is brain-damaged from alcoholism. He showed a complete lack of imagination and empathy. And his lack of brains. Or if he has any brains, he didn’t use them.

Obama has never had a job in his life (by the way, both he and his ugly wife had to give up their law licenses). Romney hasn't had one either. The rich never do. They pretend they do, and even con some people they do, but they don’t.

Obama was supposed to be Mr. Hope and Change. He turned out to be possibly the worst President ever, presiding over the death of the U.S. And he was elected twice, even though his showed his utter incompetence in his first term. And if could have just gotten Romney in...

People have been falling for the delusion that one man in power can get rid of all our problems since the human race has been around. Read the Old Testament sometimes and look at how rulers were described. Read the New Testament, too, for that matter, where Jesus referred to these people as vipers, ones who would steal the last penny of widows and orphans. Sound familiar?

Yet today our supposed religious leaders, such as the blasphemers John Hagee and Pat Robertson, put their faith in government and our political leaders. And their followers believe them. The blind leading the blind...

These days, who is office, or the schools, or the churches, tells the truth anymore about what the State really is? No one.

Since people don’t know their history anymore, they know nothing about Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.

Jefferson trusted the people of this country to run their own lives, and was opposed to Adams and Hamilton. Adams and Hamilton believed a handful of people should run the country because they thought the average person was an idiot. In other words, they had total contempt for the people of the U.S.

When Adams was President he got the Alien and Sedition Acts passed. He had people who made comments about him thrown in prison. Fortunately, when Jefferson succeeded him as President he revoked all of Adams’ laws.

Adams and Hamilton today would have been close to being corporate fascists (the kind who now run this country). Thank God Jefferson and other people like him saw through the attempts of Adams and Hamilton to destroy this country.

It’s just astonishing how people idealize their leaders, no matter what awful things they do. They voted Lincoln into office, and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR, and Kennedy (about whom Vidal said was the least qualified man he knew to be President), and both Bushes. Then Obama. Then, Romney. Oops, he lost. So now it's Obama

No matter who wins, we all lose.

Adams and Hamilton live on today. They are most politicians. Not all, but most.

Where are the Thomas Jeffersons of today? They exist, but I don’t see any in office. In fact, if any of them ran for office most people wouldn’t believe what they said. That’s what comes from the ignorance of history.

It's got to the point I no longer believe in democracy (actually, that happened a long time ago). Just look around at who's in office. Some of them are downright stupid, and many of them appear to be mentally ill. Specifically, psychopaths.

Vidal was right. The ruling classes have contempt for us. And most people can’t even see it. If they did they wouldn’t have risen up already, marched on D.C. with pitchforks and torches, and hanged the guilty upside-down by their heels, as was done to Mussolini.

Sometimes I can barely stand it. It’s exasperating, and it’s tragic. It’s the worst tragedy in the history of the human race. And since I don’t have a time machine, there’s nothing I can do to fix the mistakes of the past. I can only work on the present.

As best as I can figure, the human race is about 1500 years behind where it should be. We should be as advanced, right now in the year 2013, as we will be in 3513. And that might be an understatement. Maybe we should be as advanced as the year 5000.

Why aren’t we there? What has held us back? It’s not true government – not if government would stay minimal and unobtrusive and do its real job, protecting, as John Locke wrote, "life, liberty and property." Then there would be peace and prosperity, advancement and achievement. It’s when government goes beyond its proper boundaries and turns into what Albert Jay Nock called, Our Enemy, the State. The freedom-crushing, society-destroying, empire-building, rights-violating, war-starting, poverty-creating State. The State that always destroys, because that is its unalterable nature.

With the State opposed to Civilization (as it is always opposed to Civilization), it’s not just two steps forward, one step back – it’s 500 years forward, a thousand years back, then 500 years forward again. If the State is anything, it’s Sisyphus, the greedy king condemned forever to Hades, where he rolls a rock up a hill so it can roll right back down again.

Richard Maybury, in his book, Ancient Rome, notes there is a Roman grist mill near Arles, France that has 16 water wheels operating in tandem and a system of gears and grinders so complex it could produce enough flour for 80,000 people.

"This kind of engineering sophistication leads me to believe Roman civilization was on the brink of the Industrial Revolution 15 centuries before this revolution finally happened," he writes.

It wasn’t just that one flour mill that lends credibility to his beliefs. Roman buildings had central heating, plumbing, baths, glass windows, mosaic tile floors, and plastered and painted walls. Roman civilization had advanced engineering, mathematics, literature and philosophy.

A lot of what we have today, the Romans had thousands of years ago.

If the Romans really were on the verge of the Industrial Revolution – but failed – then the loss to us is incalculable.

What produced their advanced society? Enough freedom to create a prosperous, peaceful society. What destroyed them? The expansion of the State. Going from a Republic to an Empire, with its crushing taxes, inflation, regulation and wars. Citizens going from being adults to being children. Just as is happening in the U.S. today.

After the Roman Empire collapsed (as all empires collapse) Europe entered the Dark Ages for 500 years. It went backwards a thousand years. The majority of the population didn’t live any better in 500 A.D. than they did in 500 B.C.

This is a catastrophe that is still with us today.

The last time a culture succeeded in establishing economic and political freedom was in 1776. If you look around you, you’ll find that much that has been invented, has been invented in the last 200 years, because of that freedom.

Planes, trains and automobiles. Surgery with anesthesia. Computers and video games. Dentistry where you don’t have to get drunk and have your friends hold you down. TV, movies, CDs. Cheap, plentiful food and clean, free water. An 8-hour workday with weekends off, instead of break-breaking labor 12 hours a day six days a week, so you could live in a too-hot or too-cold hovel, barely have enough to eat, and die in your early 40’s. Vacations. RVs. Air-conditioning. Retirement. Dentures. The list unrolls and unrolls.

And what has the State given us? War, inflation, deficits, recessions, depressions, conscription, slavery, genocide. Widows and orphans. Fathers burying their sons instead of the other way around. The few times the State has done something right, it’s the same reason a stopped clock is occasionally right. If the State was a private business, it would always be fired.

And now the U.S. is following in the footsteps of Rome. History repeats. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," wrote Santayana. Scary, but true. As the empire grows, political and economic liberty is diminished at home. It’s as much a law of the universe as gravity. The end result if we stay on this road? It’s obvious. The only unknown is when. And if America – the "last, best hope" – falls, where in the world can political and economic freedom arise again? China, India, Russia? A Europe that is now rushing to embrace socialism and possibly fascism?

Where would we be now if early attempts at freedom and capitalism had succeeded permanently? If wars hadn’t slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and delayed the inventions they would have created? If 100 million to 200 million hadn’t died in the 20th-century in the rabid attempts of States to found Empires? We can only imagine.

Modern humans go back a long way. What if we had entered the Industrial Revolution in 2000 B.C.? There’s no logical reason we couldn’t have. People then were as smart as we are now. That’s what I mean by 3501 possibly being an understatement. Maybe we should be in the year 5000.

Even if we still should be in 3513, what would it be like? I’d bet we’d have cures for all diseases. We’d be growing body parts in tanks. Lose an eye or an arm? Okay, here’s another. The blind would see, the crippled would walk, and the deaf could again annoy listeners on AM radio.

We’d have space stations. Colonies on the Moon and Mars. Maybe we’d be out among the stars. "Star Trek" wouldn’t just be a TV program (I’d like the phasers, but I’d pass on the transporters, thank you). Maybe we would have developed unlimited sources of power, straight from the fabric of the universe. Maybe we’d have personal force-fields to protect us, powered by something the size of a walnut. The only limits are our imagination and creativity.

And we should have all of this right now.

Personally, I’m a bit more modest. I just wish I had a flying car. One of the first stories I ever read was Robert A. Heinlein’s "Waldo." One of the characters gets in his car, starts it...and flies to the Moon. I looked at my parents’ VW Bug, looked at the full moon, looked at the car again, and thought, "Darn." I was maybe 12.

Today, every time I look at the Moon, I wonder what it would be like to hop in my car, travel there for the weekend and hit golfballs.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

I figure in the long-run technology will be so advanced that sexbots will be a viable option, like in the movie, Cherry 2000, or like the guy in Serenity, who married one.

If (or perhaps I should say when) lovebots become viable options, just how popular will they be? Not very, I think, but some guys will exercise that option.

For one, the kind of guys who are utterly unpopular, the kind who are treated with contempt and ignored and rejected. These men have been dehumanized, and when a man is dehumanized he can become a monster. There are, however, various degrees of monstrosity. These guys are considered disposable.

It must be bizarre, to say the least, to consider yourself so disposable that you'd rather spend your money on a sexbot than put up with the monster some modern single women have turned into.

I've written before about the root of the word "monster" - it's "monstrum' and "monere"— which does not only mean to warn, but also to instruct, and forms the basis of the modern English "demonstrate." The monster is also a sign or instruction. This benign interpretation was proposed by Saint Augustine, who did not see the monster as inherently evil, but as part of the natural design of the world.

So when you see "monstrous" things, it can be a warning of worse to come. Few listen to that warning, that demonstration of "wrongness."

Here's an example: in Japan there are what are known as "Herbivore Men." Says Wikipedia: "Herbivore men is a social phenomenon in Japan of men who shun marriage or gaining a girlfriend. They are characteristically described as frugal, and interested in personal grooming. Under this categorization scheme, men and women are either herbivore type or carnivore type.

"As of September 2010, 36% of Japanese men between the ages of 16 and 19 perceived themselves in this way. Additionally, two surveys of single men in their 20s and 30s found that 61% and 70%, respectively, considered themselves grass-eating men. This phenomenon is viewed by the Japanese government as a leading cause in the nation's declining birth rate, prompting the government to provide incentives for couples that have children, including payouts and free health care."

I wonder if these guys have been treated as disposable, so they're Going Their Own Way.

There are been warnings over here, and for a long time. When I was in my early teens I read a famous story by Lester del Ray called "Helen O'Loy," written in 1938. Again, from Wikipedia:

"Two young men, a mechanic, Dave, and a medical student, Phil, collaborate on modifying a household robot, originally meant only to cook and clean. They are more successful than they intended; despite the robot's household programming, it develops emotions. The robot, named "Helen O’Loy", falls in love with Dave. Dave initially avoids her and rejects her advances, but after some time he marries her and they live together on his farm.

"Over the years Phil assists her in artificially aging her features to match the changes that occur in her human husband. When Dave inevitably dies, she sends a letter to Phil asking him to dissolve her metallic structure and bury her remains with her husband. She begs him not to let anyone discover their secret. In the final line it is revealed that Phil, who had been narrating the story, had secretly been in love with her the whole time."

It never occurred to me, being 12, that he might have been having sex with Helen. But science fiction, as usual, predicted the future. That includes "The Twilight Zone."

It has got to the point for a fair number of men it is crushing when trying to find a relationship. I noticed it starting when I was in college, when I saw guys who had simply crushed by it all. Some weren't crushed but some of them were utterly alone and sat in their rooms watching TV on Friday and Saturday nights. I didn't see these things in high school.

Some guys are apparently considered completely irrelevant and disposable. Hell, not apparently. Are. If they didn't feel they were, much of the Manosphere would not exist, and the prophetic art I just wrote about would have never existed...even all the way back to 1938.

By the way, if this ever happens, it's going to put a serious crimp in prostitution.

My mother worked for years as the night admitting clerk in the ER at the local hospital. One time, when I was about 21 or so, I asked her how many of the rape victims she worked with hadn't been raped.

She told me 90% of them were false accusations. I didn't say anything, because I didn't know what to say.

Later, there was the case of Mike Tyson, who is dumber than a box of rocks. Yes, I do believe he did rape his victim, but she didn't claim rape for a few days. Why? Because Tyson didn't call her the next morning. If he had, she would have never claimed rape. And he unjustly went to prison because of her self-delusion.

You doubt that? I know a woman who told me when she was 17 some guy threw her on a bed and jumped on her. She was yelling, "What do you think you're doing? You're not going to touch one square inch of my flesh!"

I once read an article in the paper about the neighborhood just over from mine. Turns out there was an elderly spinster from whose house were wafting...vapors.

Turns out her house was filled with some 120 cats, many sick. She was hauled off, most of the the cats were given away, the sickest ones had to be euthanized, and the house was such a catastrophe the authorities were wondering if they might have to tear it down.

Instead, guys went in wearing hazmat suits and spent about a week cleaning it up.

I suppose it's been sold, but for how much, well, that's another story.

If I was a cat, and I saw elderly female hands coming at me, I would run off yowling.

The unfunny thing about this picture is that's it's true. When statists take over and destroy things violence always follows. The Left never gives up power until forced out, and that usually involves the military taking over - which is what is going to happen in the U.S. sooner or later.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his life's work, Leftism Revisited, pointed out that not one of the "right-wing" monarchies of Europe went down fighting. Then we got the 20th Century, that Age of Leftism, with estimates up to 200 million dead.

I used to wonder if nuts went into politics or if going into politics made you into a nut.

I've decided only the potentially weak-minded go into politics, then the political power activates their nuttiness.

That picture is a perfect example of why democracy does not work. Ultimately we end up electing morons to office. Of course they have no idea they are morons, and instead not only think they're smart, they think they're smarter than we are.

This is also the perfect example of why women should not be allowed to vote or run for office.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

I've been reading the Manosphere for the past few years and see a lot of dubious concepts in it, such as the "Alpha." Alphas are supposed to be good-looking guys with money who get all the women. An "Omega" is the guy at the bottom who gets nothing.

The idea that a bunch of intellectual second-raters have discovered something new, that hasn't been discussed by more intelligent men in the past, is also dubious, to say the least.

The word "Alpha' came from the study of wolves and it means "parent wolves." They are the only ones who bred, to limit having too many cubs. Often, the pack consisted of the parents and the cubs.

If you transfer those canine concepts to humans, what you get is...a patriarch. Not a cad who spends his life strutting and boasting and trying to have sex with as many women as possible. In fact, some of the commonly-accepted definition of an Alpha reminds me of the Omegas of the entire world....blacks. (Mimicking black "culture" is something no one in his right mind would do.)

Let's get to my point.

So: why should an Omega not murder anyone above him? Answer: they do.

Seung-Hui Cho was the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 people. He of course was mentally ill, but he was made fun of his entire life, never had sex, never had a girlfriend and of course never kissed a girl.

People unbearably humiliated and ostracized get revenge, sometimes through murder. People who have been unbearably shamed try to restore their pride and self-esteem through revenge against those they believe have hurt them.

Then we have James Holmes, the Aurora shooter. He, too, was mentally ill, probably a paranoid schizophrenic, Still, he was a complete loser with women who couldn't even find a woman on a sex site. Even they rejected him.

As I read about Holmes: "James Holmes struck out with three women on an adult sex website shortly before he allegedly perpetrated the Colorado movie massacre...[he] was "a shy, pretty socially inept person."

Another Omega, not known at all today, was Charles Guiteau, the man who shot and killed President James A. Garfield in 1881.

Guiteau had joined a commune practicing "free love" and had been completely rejected by the women during the five years he spent there.

Author Candice Millard wrote of him: "Guiteau’s extravagant dreams and delusions persisted in the face of consistent and complete failure. Although the commune promised the pleasures of complex marriage, to Guiteau’s frustration, 'the Community women,' one of Oneida’s [the commune] members would later admit, 'did not extend love and confidence toward him.' In fact, so thorough was his rejection among the women that they nicknamed him 'Charles Gitout.' He bitterly complained that, while at the commune, he was 'practically a Shaker.'"

These men, alone, rejected, humiliated and ostracized, then get attention (revenge) by going out in a blaze of glory.

By the way, the German word "achtung" means both "attention" and "respect."

Writes the psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years studying violent inmates: "One of the most common fantasies I have heard from many of the most violent prison inmates is the scenario of going to their deaths in a hail of gunfire while killing as many people as possible before they themselves die."

The first recorded murder in Western mythology is when Cain slew Abel. Why? Because God rejected Cain’s sacrifice and accepted Abel’s.

“Unto Abel the Lord had respect…unto Cain the Lord had not respect.” So Cain, humiliated, attempted to replace his feelings of shame and humiliation with pride by murdering his brother, on whom he (inaccurately in this case) blamed his problems. It was revenge.

For that matter, the first recorded war in the Bible comes right after Cain and Abel, when Dinah’s brothers slaughtered the entire tribe of the man who had seduced Dinah. It was to them a matter of honor and pride and in their minds it could only be restored by wiping out all the men and taking all the women and wealth.

Gilligan said he always heard the same story as to why his interviewees said they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was “He dissed me” or else humiliated, mocked, insulted and ridiculed the prisoner’s children, wife, parents, friends. Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel: the feelings of humiliation followed by revenge manifesting itself as murder. (Gilligan also said, “The most dangerous men on earth are those who are afraid they are wimps.”)

"Omegas" aren't respected. They receive no recognition (the word "recognition" means "to look twice"). Then they make people pay attention to them by the easiest and quickest way - violence.

What is the shorthand for "lack of respect?" Dissed. "He disrespected me."

These Omegas are already dead inside. The word "mortification" means to "make dead" through overwhelming humiliation.

People who commit these kinds of crimes always feel justified since they consider it self-defense against people whom they feel are trying to murder them. And it certainly isn't going to help things now that there is shorthand word to describe them - "Omega." At the bottom. The exact opposite of an Alpha. A complete loser with nothing going for him.

Let's take the fictional Walter White. Was he an Alpha? Or just a Beta or Omega with a pistol and the will to use it (which I'm sure made him feel powerful)? Did he feel humiliated and resentful because he didn't get what he thought he should out of life, and so sought revenge on everyone? Some "Alpha."

What's going to happen, human nature being as ignorant and perverted as it is, is that anyone who isn't an "Alpha" is going to be contemptible. I read one ignoramus who said that intelligence was "a Beta trait." Know how he came to that conclusion? He made it up.

If those terms - Alphas, Omega, etc. - ever become commonly used, it will get to the point that calling someone a Beta or Gamma or Omega, or whatever silly terms are used, is going to be an insult. And after a lifetime of that, what do you think some of the responses are going to be? They won't be good ones, I'll tell you that.